Kuljit Singh vs. Pawan Goyal And Anr

Held

The Court held that the appellant was liable to pay the sum of ₹8,23,677/-. The Court found that the appellant had executed an undertaking dated 07.07.2020, acknowledging his liability to pay ₹9,83,677/- along with interest at 18% per annum and legal notice fees of ₹11,000/-. The Court noted that the appellant had sought six months to make the payment and had not raised any dispute regarding non-receipt of goods at that stage. The Court found the appellant's testimony inconsistent with his conduct, particularly his claim of no involvement and forged signatures, given his acknowledgment of liability and agreement to pay. The Court also noted that the appellant acknowledged respondent no.2 was handling administrative and operational parts of his business and that he had availed GST credit. The Court concluded that the appellant was aware of the bills, had issued a cheque, and was aware of its dishonour and had undertaken to pay. Therefore, the Court concurred with the Commercial Court's decision that the plaintiff was entitled to recover ₹8,23,677/- along with pendente lite and future interest at 6% per annum.

Facts

The appellant, Kuljit Singh, proprietor of M/s G.F. Electronics, appealed a Commercial Court judgment decreeing a suit for recovery of ₹8,23,677/- filed by the respondent, Pawan Goyal, proprietor of Baba Trading Company. The respondent claimed the amount was due for goods supplied on credit against invoices. The appellant had issued a cheque for ₹9,83,677/- which was dishonoured. Subsequently, an agreement dated 07.07.2020 was executed, wherein the appellant agreed to pay ₹9,83,677/- plus interest and legal costs by 31.12.2020. The appellant paid ₹1,60,000/- but failed to pay the balance. The appellant contested the suit, claiming no involvement in the transaction, alleging collusion between the respondent and respondent no.2 (Sunil Ahuja), and stating his signatures were forged on some cheques. The Commercial Court decreed the suit for the principal amount with interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs.8,23,677/-, as prayed in the plaint? (OPP) 2. If the answer to issue no. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and for which period? (OPP) The appellant argued that he had nothing to do with the transaction, alleging collusion between the plaintiff and respondent no.2, and that his signatures were forged on some cheques. He claimed he never received the goods and the liability was not explained. He also stated he filed a police complaint and a petition under Section 156(3) CrPC. The respondent argued that the appellant had been carrying on business with him for years, supplying goods on credit against invoices, and that the appellant acknowledged his liability through a dishonoured cheque and a subsequent agreement. The respondent relied on the invoices, legal notice, agreement, dishonoured cheque, and dishonour memo.